Until the creation of sperm can be genetically-altered to enable the
inheritance of mitochondrial DNA (i.e., via the male lineage, and not
the female), it seems everyone should accept the "plan" that mother
nature has presented. . .

Latest readings point to connections between mitochondrial DNA and
the epigenes. Very complex stuff, yes.

Through the mitochondrial DNA, human lineage can be traced back to
about a dozen females (ladies) in North Africa. Also, interesting stuff.

---

The real question is why do all these people think it is acceptable to do this and what does that tell you about how woman are valued?

Because that is the societal norm.

If you wish to examine the norm, you likely will quickly descend into biology as it seems to have been the norm for a long time.

LOL! Biology has nothing to do with power structures.

Stop banging that drum Gary, its nonsense.

Power structure? Oh you mean money. Answer the 4 questions if you want to know about power.

If you want to talk about how society differentiates between men and women, then you must talk about biology. How expendable male units are in comparison to female units especially when it comes to warfare and how that has distorted values from your idea of a perfect norm. It seem to go far back in recorded history, excepting a few isolated tribes. That should be a big clue by 4 for you if you think this is some newfangled thing that was recently invented or imposed. Long standing norms generally have some basis from outside the society, especially when seen in multiple societies. Maybe the word "isolated" should also be a clue, as in minimal contact and therefore warfare with other humans.

---

The real question is why do all these people think it is acceptable to do this and what does that tell you about how woman are valued?

Because that is the societal norm.

If you wish to examine the norm, you likely will quickly descend into biology as it seems to have been the norm for a long time.

LOL! Biology has nothing to do with power structures.

Stop banging that drum Gary, its nonsense.

Power structure? Oh you mean money. Answer the 4 questions if you want to know about power.

I'm not letting you take over the debate in the direction you think it should go rather than dealing with the issue I actually raised.

If you want to talk about how society differentiates between men and women, then you must talk about biology. How expendable male units are in comparison to female units especially when it comes to warfare and how that has distorted values from your idea of a perfect norm. It seem to go far back in recorded history, excepting a few isolated tribes. That should be a big clue by 4 for you if you think this is some newfangled thing that was recently invented or imposed. Long standing norms generally have some basis from outside the society, especially when seen in multiple societies. Maybe the word "isolated" should also be a clue, as in minimal contact and therefore warfare with other humans.

I don't have to do anything, Gary. That's kind of the point. That you think you can instruct me on what points I can and cannot make says it all really.

Socio-biology is a tiny part of the issue, it is often misused, misinterpreted and misunderstood. I won't discuss psudoscience with you. Especially as you yourself are guilty in these very forums of cherry picking your examples.

Also the rest of your post has nothing to do with why it is ok to treat a woman as nothing more than body parts for the use of men. So how about you address that?...and the minute you mention "biology" as if that is the answer you lose absolutely all credibility in my eyes.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary i'll start by saying your a prude.

1 model is not evil she gets payed honest money
2 photographer not evil he also get paid honest money
3 editor not evil he pays good money for it doesn't steal it
4 reader pays honest money to read it and doesn't just buy it for the pic's

A prostitutes is not evil also she gets paid good money and is more honest
Than some chick at a club there cracking on to guys just to get a free night out or a bloke doing the same thing when both are in a relationship

Oh yeh your in American and prostitution is illegal , and that is evil

why because then crim's run the brothels illegally

Not like here where they are licensed and have to meet public health standards.

In fact i know of a few nice lady's that are married and did it to get some quick money and heaps of it to buy a house or pay for there wedding and there partners knew they where doing it . It's a honest profession

And before the born again's start Jesus married Mary Magdalene according to the da vinci code and wasn't she a pro. before Jesus saved her

And if your married you are not the boss of the household your wife is unless your one of these P####s that wife bash

I think that covers what you where getting at the model is a prostitute right !

---

No one is borne evil, but my second cousin on Dad's side is
a truly, purely, evil terrible excuse, for a normal human being.
Plus the dude thinks he is as good looking as I am. Perhaps,
maybe, a large part of evil starts with some miscommunication.
Talking it out is very good. just sayin'

---

I'd say that some people are born evil, some people have evil thrust upon them and some good people do evil things.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'd say that some people are born evil, some people have evil thrust upon them and some good people do evil things.

Well said Es, Evil exists and can manifest itself in many different ways.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

"If you can know how to hate,
you can learn how to love!"

This is my families way to all the world.

---

"If you can know how to hate,
you can learn how to love!"

This is my families way to all the world.

Truer words were never spoken.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I think treating woman as objects is evil.

Here on The Island, We All Look Like, well, Me. Can't Tell WO from Man. HU we are Not. Call Us, Big Hunks Of Cool Lava. So, Evil? We Rock Steady Something.

HO HUM. Beatin' dat Same Same DRum DRum fO 400 Years. Bang On.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Steady Rock easy...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

If you want to talk about how society differentiates between men and women, then you must talk about biology. How expendable male units are in comparison to female units especially when it comes to warfare and how that has distorted values from your idea of a perfect norm. It seem to go far back in recorded history, excepting a few isolated tribes. That should be a big clue by 4 for you if you think this is some newfangled thing that was recently invented or imposed. Long standing norms generally have some basis from outside the society, especially when seen in multiple societies. Maybe the word "isolated" should also be a clue, as in minimal contact and therefore warfare with other humans.

Also, irrelevant. Just because the norm was this for thousands of years (and btw, thats nonsense) doesn't mean that therefor it cannot and should not be changed. Norms change all the time, so why shouldn't this one be changed as well? We are no longer living in the stone age, so why would you argue in favor of norms dating from back then?

Gary i'll start by saying your a prude.

Well, you might be gobsmacked .... (I'm not sure the statute of limitations has run its course)

1 model is not evil she gets payed honest money
2 photographer not evil he also get paid honest money
3 editor not evil he pays good money for it doesn't steal it
4 reader pays honest money to read it and doesn't just buy it for the pic's

Yes, quite. Presumably the prices paid match the scarcity of the goods and services and are fair with all the other economic issues. Of course government could come in and upset the free market economy, but I don't see that as an issue for Page 3.

A prostitutes is not evil also she gets paid good money and is more honest Than some chick at a club there cracking on to guys just to get a free night out or a bloke doing the same thing when both are in a relationship

Oh yeh your in American and prostitution is illegal , and that is evil

why because then crim's run the brothels illegally

Not like here where they are licensed and have to meet public health standards.

Not so in all the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

In fact i know of a few nice lady's that are married and did it to get some quick money and heaps of it to buy a house or pay for there wedding and there partners knew they where doing it . It's a honest profession

And before the born again's start Jesus married Mary Magdalene according to the da vinci code and wasn't she a pro. before Jesus saved her

And if your married you are not the boss of the household your wife is unless your one of these P####s that wife bash

I think that covers what you where getting at the model is a prostitute right !

No, she isn't, but there are plenty who see her as such, not as a model or an actress.

However in all those 4 points, some feel there is some horrible evil exploitation taking place. I'm not sure why unless they feel that sex is somehow dirty and filthy. We pay to see athletes hit balls. We pay to see magicians make magic. We pay to see actors act. So why is it so damn exploitative evil to see boobs on page 3? Or do they want to see hunks on page 5?

---

No, she isn't, but there are plenty who see her as such, not as a model or an actress.

However in all those 4 points, some feel there is some horrible evil exploitation taking place. I'm not sure why unless they feel that sex is somehow dirty and filthy. We pay to see athletes hit balls. We pay to see magicians make magic. We pay to see actors act. So why is it so damn exploitative evil to see boobs on page 3? Or do they want to see hunks on page 5?

You might want to check back into the education thread about dominant cultures before you assume there is some sort of equality between boobs on page 3 and hunks on page 5.

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

You should take on board your own comments about privilege and remember how insidious it is.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

Wholeheartedly agree. +1

I just finished, "How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life", by
Russ Roberts.

He references Adam Smith's book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments",
which Adam Smith wrote, before his more popular, "The Wealth of Nations".

An interesting read -- he spells out a lot of what we know about ourselves,
our relationships with loved ones, friends, . . . strangers.

Does his book shed any additional light on the important ideas brought out
in this thread? You'd, of course, have to decide. For my part, it's the
usual yes, and no (sorry).

You might check it out, never-the-less.

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

Wholeheartedly agree. +1

Are the women in this discussion, willing to see more Hunks and Male Strippers?

Why would they be? The Chippendales are as demeaning to men as the female strippers and t***y dancers are to women.

All about turning a human being into nothing more than a collection of body parts at a meat market.

As Es99 says, maybe one of these days if things change... but not at this time.

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

Wholeheartedly agree. +1

Are the women in this discussion, willing to see more Hunks and Male Strippers?

Why would they be? The Chippendales are as demeaning to men as the female strippers and t***y dancers are to women.

All about turning a human being into nothing more than a collection of body parts at a meat market.

As Es99 says, maybe one of these days if things change... but not at this time.

'Sexual Interest' will never stop, despite what the Puritan's want, by either Gender.

Unless we wish to stop procreation.

Good luck.

Of course it won't! But, as a wise man once wrote: There is a time and a place for everything. 'Page 3' is NOT the place for it, IMO.

No, she isn't, but there are plenty who see her as such, not as a model or an actress.

However in all those 4 points, some feel there is some horrible evil exploitation taking place. I'm not sure why unless they feel that sex is somehow dirty and filthy. We pay to see athletes hit balls. We pay to see magicians make magic. We pay to see actors act. So why is it so damn exploitative evil to see boobs on page 3? Or do they want to see hunks on page 5?

You might want to check back into the education thread about dominant cultures before you assume there is some sort of equality between boobs on page 3 and hunks on page 5.

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

You should take on board your own comments about privilege and remember how insidious it is.

You seem to wish to advocate a society where women are not judged on their looks. There is such a society today, ISIL. No one is permitted to see a woman there, so it is impossible to make such judgements. Be careful what you wish for, end results are frequently unexpected.

---

No, she isn't, but there are plenty who see her as such, not as a model or an actress.

However in all those 4 points, some feel there is some horrible evil exploitation taking place. I'm not sure why unless they feel that sex is somehow dirty and filthy. We pay to see athletes hit balls. We pay to see magicians make magic. We pay to see actors act. So why is it so damn exploitative evil to see boobs on page 3? Or do they want to see hunks on page 5?

You might want to check back into the education thread about dominant cultures before you assume there is some sort of equality between boobs on page 3 and hunks on page 5.

If we were in an equal society where a woman's worth is not primarily judged on her looks then you might have a point.

However, we are not there, so until the newspaper has as much column space on the actual achievements of women (i.e. their merit as a successful lawyer as opposed to marrying George Cloony) as it does to the achievements of men then the inclusion of a woman as a collection of body parts will have less negative connotations. Until then the page 3 titty page does nothing but perpetuate the evil of objectifying women.

You should take on board your own comments about privilege and remember how insidious it is.

You seem to wish to advocate a society where women are not judged on their looks. There is such a society today, ISIL. No one is permitted to see a woman there, so it is impossible to make such judgements. Be careful what you wish for, end results are frequently unexpected.

Everybody is judged on their looks in society these days, women AND men!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures